Forced Vaccination of a Newborn Despite Parents' Objections
JG
about the safety of vaccines, their [lack of] mercury content, the
Geiers, the reliability of hepatitis B tests,..., let me point out that
the issue at hand is that of *parental rights*.)
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Shot forced on newborn
over parents' objections
Orwellian nightmare for 'persecuted' couple
as armed guards ensure infant's vaccination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Posted: June 18, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Diana Lynne
Š 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
What was supposed to be a joyous occasion - the birth of their first
child - turned out to be an Orwellian nightmare for a young Colorado
couple whose newborn was vaccinated for hepatitis B over their religious
and philosophical objections, while armed guards stood by to prevent
them from intervening.... (remainder of article at
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33124)
Roger Schlafly
> child - turned out to be an Orwellian nightmare for a young Colorado
> couple whose newborn was vaccinated for hepatitis B over their religious
> and philosophical objections, while armed guards stood by to prevent
> them from intervening.... (remainder of article at
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33124
This story is outrageous. This is in a state that supposedly does not
have mandatory vaccination, because exemptions are so easy to get.
Some people might think that it showed recklessness for the parents
to attempt a home birth. I say that it is the parents' right to do the
home birth, and to make medical decisions for the baby.
JG
news:BblLa.1249$RO.460...@twister2.starband.net...
I agree. Funny, though, how some will argue that parents DON'T have
this right, yet nevertheless DO have the right to terminate an
"inconvenient" pregnancy.
I don't know whether the parents in this case are members of the General
Assembly of the First Born, a church that has many members in the Grand
Junction area and has created a lot of controversy the past few years as
result of a few members' kids dying (allegedly) because of medical
neglect. (See
http://www.rickross.com/reference/firstborn/firstborn8.html?FACTNet.)
Health/law officials are probably tired of seeing obviously ill kids die
when (they believe) medical treatment would have prevented it, but
forced vaccination is inexcusable. I hope the parents are planning to
file a civil suit against the hospital, doctors, and public officials
involved.
CBI
"JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:I0jLa.6856$Hw.53...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> Just received this from a friend. (And before anyone starts arguing
> about the safety of vaccines, their [lack of] mercury content, the
> Geiers, the reliability of hepatitis B tests,..., let me point out that
> the issue at hand is that of *parental rights*.)
>
>
I agree that the thought of the forced vaccination gives me the willies -
but a few comments:
The websites that are carrying this story are so outrageously biased that
they make it hard not to talk about the other stuff. After all, your link
devotes much more space to the other issues than those of parental rights.
They even offer links giving more info on the other issues and none to sites
that discuss parental rights. If parental rights is the topic at hand maybe
it would be helpful if the referenced sites presented the issues as such and
not just another blind (and misguided) diatribe against vaccines in general.
I would point out that this was not a case of routine childhood vaccination.
It was prophylaxis for a known exposure to a disease. It falls more into the
category of forcing treatment for an illness than routine childhood
vaccination. I'm not saying that this makes it right (or that it doesn't) -
just that we should be careful about comparing apples and oranges.
--
CBI, MD
Roger Schlafly
> Health/law officials are probably tired of seeing obviously ill kids die
> when (they believe) medical treatment would have prevented it, but
> forced vaccination is inexcusable.
This couple made 2 medically risky decisions:
1. Attempting a home birth.
2. Delaying HBV vaccine while there was doubt about the mom
being HBV+.
Of these, the first seems riskier and I wouldn't want to try it.
But both seem to be clearly within the range of decisions made
by rational parents.
I just got a letter from Alan R. Yurko, who is serving a life sentence
for shaking his 2-month-old baby to death. Not sure what to think
about that, as evidence on both sides is disturbing.
Mark
> about the safety of vaccines, their [lack of] mercury content, the
> Geiers, the reliability of hepatitis B tests,..., let me point out that
> the issue at hand is that of *parental rights*.)
>
>
> LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
> Shot forced on newborn
> over parents' objections
> Orwellian nightmare for 'persecuted' couple
> as armed guards ensure infant's vaccination
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> Posted: June 18, 2003
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>
>
> By Diana Lynne
>
> What was supposed to be a joyous occasion - the birth of their first
> child - turned out to be an Orwellian nightmare for a young Colorado
> couple whose newborn was vaccinated for hepatitis B over their religious
> and philosophical objections, while armed guards stood by to prevent
> them from intervening.... (remainder of article at
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33124)
Quote from the article:
"According to the couple's personal physician, the screening test
gives a false-positive 40 to 60 percent of the time. "
-- Bullshit. Find proof, or fuck off, Mr. "personal physcian".
Treating neonatal Hep B infection with Hep B vaccine and HBIVIG goes a
LONG way toward heading off lifelong Hepatitis B carrier state and a
good chance of developing liver cancer at a young age. Since they
have no insurance, guess who would be stuck footing the bill for THAT
treatment, JG and Roger?
This "young couple" knows diddly-shit about hepatitis, its treatment,
or the financial and medical consequences if it is left untreated.
If your libertarianism (no capital "L") extends to denying medical
coverage to morons, I retract my statements.
Mark, MD
Roger Schlafly
> Quote from the article:
> "According to the couple's personal physician, the screening test
> gives a false-positive 40 to 60 percent of the time. "
> -- Bullshit. Find proof, or fuck off, Mr. "personal physcian".
I assume that he meant that a positive test turns out to be false
about half the time.
> Treating neonatal Hep B infection with Hep B vaccine and HBIVIG goes a
> LONG way toward heading off lifelong Hepatitis B carrier state and a
> good chance of developing liver cancer at a young age.
The article suggests that the parents were willing to get that treatment,
provided that the mom's infection could be confirmed. The mom denied
that he had HBV, and her 3rd HBV test was negative.
JG
news:5ee850fe.03062...@posting.google.com...
[...]
> Quote from the article:
> "According to the couple's personal physician, the screening test
> gives a false-positive 40 to 60 percent of the time. "
> -- Bullshit. Find proof, or fuck off, Mr. "personal physcian".
The article didn't specify what test was used, Mark. The HBcAb (core
antibody) test, which I'll bet was the one initially (2x) used, *is*
apparently quite unreliable: "The enzyme-linked immunoassay for HBcAb
has false-positive result rates up to 75%"
(http://www.hcvadvocate.org/munoz.htm); "There is also evidence to
suggest that 30-50% of positive HBcAb tests in healthy blood donors are
false positive" (http://www.bloodctrwise.org/products/infectious.html);
"It should be noted that among blood donors, there is a high incidence
of false positive HbcAb tests" tests
(http://www.itxm.org/Archive/tmu12-93.htm). ...BTW, nice language,,
Mark! (PMS?)
> Treating neonatal Hep B infection with Hep B vaccine and HBIVIG goes a
> LONG way toward heading off lifelong Hepatitis B carrier state and a
> good chance of developing liver cancer at a young age.
Who's said otherwise? This child, mind you, DIDN'T have a neonatal
infection!
Since they
> have no insurance, guess who would be stuck footing the bill for THAT
> treatment, JG and Roger?
No way to tell now, is there? Not all poor people turn to the gubmnt
for help. (I'm assuming that's your implication.) As a matter of fact,
I HIGHLY doubt this couple, given their antipathy for the gubmnt, would
seek public assistance.
> This "young couple" knows diddly-shit about hepatitis, its treatment,
> or the financial and medical consequences if it is left untreated.
And your proof of this would be? Look, the couple, according to the
article, doesn't "eschew modern medicine," they simply "prefer to avoid
it when possible." (Apparently their religious convictions have a lot
to do with this, but perhaps they don't wish to incur *needless*
expense.)
> If your libertarianism (no capital "L") extends to denying medical
> coverage to morons, I retract my statements.
In an ideal world, the gubmnt would not pay for anyone's health care
costs. Look what a mess Medicaid and Medicare have gotten us into...
JG
"How many Catholic schools do you think teach the students to question
the authority of the Pope? Do you believe Christian schools teach
students to question or challenge the authority of Jesus Christ?
Do military schools teach the cadets to challenge the authority
of superior officers? Well, why should we then expect government schools
to teach children to question the authority of government?"
-- Neal Boortz
JG
news:bdkue8$5f6$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
> I would point out that this was not a case of routine childhood
vaccination.
> It was prophylaxis for a known exposure to a disease.
It might have been prophylaxis for an *assumed* exposure to HBV. The
initial test (unspecified, btw) results (on the mother) were WRONG. (Of
course, this brings up other questions: Should the mother have the
right to refuse testing? I can't believe, based on the information
provided, that she would have consented to being tested for HBV in the
first place. Was the testing done with her *fully* informed consent,
i.e., was she informed about the consequences/implications if she tested
positive for HBV? I have a feeling that serologic HBV testing of new
mothers is routine.)
Here's a question for you, Chris: Where are the studies that show that
the vaccination of infants born to HBV+ mothers must be performed
(virtually) *immediately* after birth in order to have a protective
effect? ACIP/CDC guidelines (2002) regarding infants born to HBV+ moms
call for vaccination (and the receipt of HBIG) within 12 hours of birth
(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5102a4.htm), yet an earlier
(1991) report (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00033405.htm)
stated "Transmission of perinatal HBV infection can be effectively
prevented if the HBsAg-positive mother is identified and if her infant
receives appropriate immunoprophylaxis. Hepatitis B vaccination and one
dose of HBIG, administered within 24 hours after birth, are 85%-95%
effective in preventing both HBV infection and the chronic carrier
state. Hepatitis B vaccine administered alone in either a three-dose or
four-dose schedule beginning within 24 hours after birth, is 70%-95%
effective in preventing perinatal HBV infections." "Within 12 hours"
is recommended (note that the hospital/doctors in this case didn't meet
this deadline!), yet apparently "within 24 hours" is okay. What would
be the consequence(s) of waiting, say, 48 hours, i.e., long enough for
the results of more sensitive/reliable testing of the mother? (Reminds
me of the report, a few months ago, of the child being required [by
school officials?] to be re-vaccinated because he/she was vaccinated
very shortly before his/her first birthday instead of at the recommended
age of 12 months...)
It falls more into the
> category of forcing treatment for an illness than routine childhood
> vaccination. I'm not saying that this makes it right (or that it
doesn't) -
> just that we should be careful about comparing apples and oranges.
Again, would waiting a few (16) more hours, or another day, have made a
perceptible/provable difference?
JG
"Some of these days they are going to remove so much of the 'hooey' and
the thousands of things the schools have become clogged up with,
and we will find that we can educate our broods for about one-tenth
of the price and learn 'em something that they might accidentally use
after they escape."
-- Will Rogers
CBI
> "CBI" <00...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:bdkue8$5f6$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > I would point out that this was not a case of routine childhood
> vaccination.
> > It was prophylaxis for a known exposure to a disease.
>
> It might have been prophylaxis for an *assumed* exposure to HBV.
It was not assumed. They tested for it.
> The
> initial test (unspecified, btw) results (on the mother) were WRONG.
I don't think enough details were given to say this.
I'm assuming that the testing in question was that they did an antibody
test intitially (which was positive x 2) and then they did the surface
antigen test which was negative. This would indicate that, despite her
protests, she did have the disease (not that the tests were wrong). She just
may have cleared it and not beeen a chronic carrier (or she may be one but
just not detectable at the present time).........Of course, I am just
speculating.
> (Of
> course, this brings up other questions: Should the mother have the
> right to refuse testing? I can't believe, based on the information
> provided, that she would have consented to being tested for HBV in the
> first place. Was the testing done with her *fully* informed consent,
> i.e., was she informed about the consequences/implications if she tested
> positive for HBV? I have a feeling that serologic HBV testing of new
> mothers is routine.)
Yes, it is. I doubt she gave formal consent for that test specifically. I
agree that she should have the right of refusal. I also know that it is
simply not be practical to get individual written consent for every single
test that is done on all patients and most patients don't want it to need to
be done. I'll bet that if you were to carefully read the document she did
sign you would find some language to the effect that she is consenting to
all the usual care and that if she has any concerns or questions she should
voice them. I would also point out that if the parents were nearly as
knowlegable as they claimed to be that they should have known the testing
would be done and the repercussions of it.
> Here's a question for you, Chris: Where are the studies that show that
> the vaccination of infants born to HBV+ mothers must be performed
> (virtually) *immediately* after birth in order to have a protective
> effect? ACIP/CDC guidelines (2002) regarding infants born to HBV+ moms
> call for vaccination (and the receipt of HBIG) within 12 hours of birth
> (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5102a4.htm), yet an earlier
> (1991) report (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00033405.htm)
> stated "Transmission of perinatal HBV infection can be effectively
> prevented if the HBsAg-positive mother is identified and if her infant
> receives appropriate immunoprophylaxis. Hepatitis B vaccination and one
> dose of HBIG, administered within 24 hours after birth, are 85%-95%
> effective in preventing both HBV infection and the chronic carrier
> state. Hepatitis B vaccine administered alone in either a three-dose or
> four-dose schedule beginning within 24 hours after birth, is 70%-95%
> effective in preventing perinatal HBV infections." "Within 12 hours"
> is recommended
It has been a while since I looked at those studies so my memory is fuzzy
on the details of exactly how many hours. There is data to suggest that the
doses are more effective if given sooner but I don't think I was taught the
12 hour rule (I seem to remember it as 24 hours - but I don't do much
newborn nursery work and would look it up if the situation arose). I would
take the statement at face value and assume the studies are as quoted -
within 24 hours - since they probably would have given the details to
support a 12 hour recommendation if they had them.
> (note that the hospital/doctors in this case didn't meet
> this deadline!), yet apparently "within 24 hours" is okay. What would
> be the consequence(s) of waiting, say, 48 hours, i.e., long enough for
> the results of more sensitive/reliable testing of the mother?
I don't know.
That is another problem with this report. They don't give enough info to be
able to verify the quotes and what was really said by whom (thinking both of
the insistance of giving it in 12 hours and the pediatricians comments about
false positives). Perhaps the lack of evidence for decreased effectiveness
at 48 rather than 24 hours should have been raised by the parents.
As presented the entire episode is horrific. The only sources presenting it
that I could find are anti-vaccine activists with no independant
verification and who clearly manipualted the details to scaremonger larger
groups of people than would otherwise be interested. If they more accurately
presented it as a case of a woman with a known history of hepatitis B
refusing medical treatment for her exposed child the reaction would not have
been nearly as broad. Whether she should have that right is a valid
discussion but they are trying to make this into a vaccine issue that is not
what most people picture/fear when they read headlines about "forced
vaccination".
> (Reminds
> me of the report, a few months ago, of the child being required [by
> school officials?] to be re-vaccinated because he/she was vaccinated
> very shortly before his/her first birthday instead of at the recommended
> age of 12 months...)
I think that is stupid as well.
--
CBI, MD
CBI
> The article didn't specify what test was used, Mark. The HBcAb (core
> antibody) test, which I'll bet was the one initially (2x) used, *is*
> apparently quite unreliable: "The enzyme-linked immunoassay for HBcAb
> has false-positive result rates up to 75%"
Actually, the one that is usually used is the surface antibody test
(HBsAb'), not the core antibody (HBcAb').
I would also point out that this is usually tested both at the time of
delivery and earlier in the pregnancy so that they can work these issues out
and prepare to take the right course when the time arrives. A big part of
the problem here is that they tried to first eschew themselves of the system
and them be a part of it. Then they consented to care and later decided they
didn't like some of what they consented to.
I'm not saying that they were treated as they should have been (as
presented - take it for what it is worth), but there are a lot of holes in
this story and they created at least some of the confusion themselves.
--
CBI, MD
PF Riley
wrote:
>
>"JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:2QrLa.7124$Hw.54...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
>> "CBI" <00...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:bdkue8$5f6$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net...
>>
>> > I would point out that this was not a case of routine childhood
>> > vaccination. It was prophylaxis for a known exposure to a disease.
>>
>> It might have been prophylaxis for an *assumed* exposure to HBV.
>
>It was not assumed. They tested for it.
After reading the article and reports from other sources as well, my
only conclusion about the whole story is that it's mostly if not all
an anonymous anti-vac's wet dream (i.e., it's a fairy tale that never
happened, at least no where near how it was reported.)
Think about it: An anonymous dad with an anonymous baby tells his
story to anti-vaccine newspapers that disseminate the "news" to each
other, yet no other reputable and/or pseudo-objective news sources
have reported on it. The story is juicy: A defenseless newborn is
forced to receive a vaccine, so it must be hepatitis B as that is the
only one offered to newborns, so they had to make up a story about a
false result on testing, complete with believable circumstances
leading up to the endpoint (emergency C-section followed by testing
right around the time of birth, adding a sense of urgency).
>> The
>> initial test (unspecified, btw) results (on the mother) were WRONG.
>
>I don't think enough details were given to say this.
>
>I'm assuming that the testing in question was that they did an antibody
>test intitially (which was positive x 2) and then they did the surface
>antigen test which was negative. This would indicate that, despite her
>protests, she did have the disease (not that the tests were wrong). She just
>may have cleared it and not beeen a chronic carrier (or she may be one but
>just not detectable at the present time).........Of course, I am just
>speculating.
Unfortunately, I think this is not correct. I can't imagine anyone
screening a pregnant mother for hepatitis B with any antibody test, as
none are useful for screening for chronic infection.
The screening test used for detection of chronic hepatitis B is HBsAg
(hepatitis B surface antigen). The claim that "[a]ccording to the
couple's personal physician, the screening test gives a false-positive
40 to 60 percent of the time" is pure bullshit. (The "personal
physician, by the way, according to the Sierra Times, is a
chiropractor.) A claim that a test has a high false-positive rate is a
claim that it has low specificity. The World Health Organization
evaluated five HBsAg assays and found specificities >95%:
While about a third of adults with chronic hepatitis B have no risk
factors for it whatsoever, I would suspect still that a young mother
in Colorado who tests positive for HBsAg might indeed have a good
chance that it's a false positive. But to make up false-positive rates
of "40 to 60 percent" is to falsely accuse the physicians of
recklessly using an unreliable test, which they most certainly did
not.
>> (Of
>> course, this brings up other questions: Should the mother have the
>> right to refuse testing? I can't believe, based on the information
>> provided, that she would have consented to being tested for HBV in the
>> first place. Was the testing done with her *fully* informed consent,
>> i.e., was she informed about the consequences/implications if she tested
>> positive for HBV? I have a feeling that serologic HBV testing of new
>> mothers is routine.)
>
>Yes, it is. I doubt she gave formal consent for that test specifically. I
>agree that she should have the right of refusal. I also know that it is
>simply not be practical to get individual written consent for every single
>test that is done on all patients and most patients don't want it to need to
>be done. I'll bet that if you were to carefully read the document she did
>sign you would find some language to the effect that she is consenting to
>all the usual care and that if she has any concerns or questions she should
>voice them. I would also point out that if the parents were nearly as
>knowlegable as they claimed to be that they should have known the testing
>would be done and the repercussions of it.
I agree 100%. Consenting to medical care means consenting to the usual
and customary testing and procedures that go along with it. This means
that if you present to a hospital with no prenatal care (chiropractors
don't count) and want them to deliver you of your child, you'd better
expect that they're going to do some of the testing they do for all
mothers. If this were such a huge issue for this family, they could
easily have educated themselves on what to expect in the hospital and
refused testing for hepatitis B upon arrival.
>> Here's a question for you, Chris: Where are the studies that show that
>> the vaccination of infants born to HBV+ mothers must be performed
>> (virtually) *immediately* after birth in order to have a protective
>> effect? ACIP/CDC guidelines (2002) regarding infants born to HBV+ moms
>> call for vaccination (and the receipt of HBIG) within 12 hours of birth
>> (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5102a4.htm), yet an earlier
>> (1991) report (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00033405.htm)
>> stated "Transmission of perinatal HBV infection can be effectively
>> prevented if the HBsAg-positive mother is identified and if her infant
>> receives appropriate immunoprophylaxis. Hepatitis B vaccination and one
>> dose of HBIG, administered within 24 hours after birth, are 85%-95%
>> effective in preventing both HBV infection and the chronic carrier
>> state. Hepatitis B vaccine administered alone in either a three-dose or
>> four-dose schedule beginning within 24 hours after birth, is 70%-95%
>> effective in preventing perinatal HBV infections." "Within 12 hours"
>> is recommended
>
>It has been a while since I looked at those studies so my memory is fuzzy
>on the details of exactly how many hours. There is data to suggest that the
>doses are more effective if given sooner but I don't think I was taught the
>12 hour rule (I seem to remember it as 24 hours - but I don't do much
>newborn nursery work and would look it up if the situation arose). I would
>take the statement at face value and assume the studies are as quoted -
>within 24 hours - since they probably would have given the details to
>support a 12 hour recommendation if they had them.
I learned and still keep 12 hours as a rule. I found only abstracts
online for JAMA and Pediatrics for the three references (4, 5, and 8)
in the 1991 MMWR report and none mentioned time limits. I would
suspect that the research showed 24 hours was OK, so 12 hours was
picked to be extra safe.
>> (note that the hospital/doctors in this case didn't meet
>> this deadline!), yet apparently "within 24 hours" is okay. What would
>> be the consequence(s) of waiting, say, 48 hours, i.e., long enough for
>> the results of more sensitive/reliable testing of the mother?
>
>I don't know.
The longer you wait, of course, the less chance you have of
neutralizing any infecting virus particles with the HBIG. Your window
of opportunity to prevent acute hepatitis B in the neonate (and thus
chronic hepatitis B, as the vast majority of neonates with acute
infection become chronic carriers) closes with time.
Comments on the article itself:
>According to the couple's personal physician [chiropractor], the
>screening test gives a false-positive 40 to 60 percent of the time."
Already commented above.
>While not eschewing modern medicine, the couple prefers to avoid it
>when possible and has a strong conviction against vaccinations.
Way to rope in those who would be otherwise turned off by _extreme_
kooks!
>"We believe in God, and that God has created us in his image. In being
>created in God's image, we are given his perfect immune system. We are
>bestowed with His gift, the immune system."
I'll assume he is referring to the standard Judeo-Christian God. Yet
again, another overzealous religious type who doesn't understand what
"in His image" means. Does he think we're all Bruce Almighty?
Does God have an immune system? Wouldn't God's digestive system be so
perfect that it doesn't need food? Do they eat? Wouldn't God's perfect
integumentary system be such that it doesn't need cleaning? Do they
bathe? Does _God_ eat and bathe?
>It doesn't take a genius to do the calculations when on their day of
>birth children are given the hepatitis B vaccine, which is 12.5
>micrograms of mercury," Geier told Insight magazine.
Sorry, JG, I _will_ comment on this mercury nonsense. If this really
happened in April, 2003, then there was no mercury in the vaccine. So
why does WorldNetDaily include this quotation? Could it be because
this "story" is simply anti-vac propaganda? As others have pointed
out, if this is really about parental rights, why is relatively little
attention devoted to that issue in the article?
>With armed guards lining the ICU, the first of three ordered
>vaccinations was administered to the baby. According to the family's
>physician, the baby immediately exhibited the typical side effects of
>the vaccine.
Hmm.... so his thigh was sore the next day? Oh, the horror!
>By the time the second shot was due to be administered, the father had
>succeeded in persuading county social worker Dan Overmeyer the
>vaccination posed more risk than good for the baby's health.
More anti-vac propaganda. I doubt Overmeyer concluded that vaccines
were more risky than good for the baby -- he probably simply concluded
that the baby is now known to have had no perinatal exposure to
hepatitis B so protective custody and court-ordered hepatitis B
vaccines are no longer required. His opinion otherwise on the risk of
giving hepatitis B vaccine to an infant is irrelevant.
>"Most of the doctors that I've talked to from around the country that
>know about vaccinations have said that it takes months and sometimes
>years for [adverse reactions] to show up,"
When he says "doctors... that know about vaccinations" he means
homeopaths, chiropractors, Classen, Scheibner, and the like.
>"If people don't speak out and voice their disapproval and talk to
>their congressman and make a big deal out of things like this then we
>will find ourselves very soon in a sort of police state where we have
>no individual freedoms and the government tells us what to do, what
>not to do and basically raises our children for us."
The ol' slippery slope. It was one harmless shot. Get a grip.
>They feel both the hospital staff and the judge persecuted them for
>their religious conviction against vaccinations.
Persecuted them? Is he implying that they cooked the results of her
hepatitis screening in order to get to vaccinate the child of an
anti-vaccine kook? Does he really think the pediatrician there had
nothing better to do than to organize, on short notice as they arrived
by ambulance for a C-section, a grand conspiracy with the lab, and
that he felt strongly enough to continue to pursue it through the
social workers and ultimately the court system?
>"The doctor and hospital thought we would be easy targets as we were
>young and penniless. They do not like people who try to avoid the
>system and they don't like anyone to question whether or not their
>practices are truly in the best interests of the patient," the father
>said.
The doctor was trying to prevent his child from developing chronic
hepatitis B. I'm sure there was little more to it than that, but if he
wants to imagine there are greater philosophical issues of paternalism
running through the doctor's mind... well, it's a free country.
PF
PF Riley
wrote:
>
>"JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:mPrLa.7123$Hw.54...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
>
>> The article didn't specify what test was used, Mark. The HBcAb (core
>> antibody) test, which I'll bet was the one initially (2x) used, *is*
>> apparently quite unreliable: "The enzyme-linked immunoassay for HBcAb
>> has false-positive result rates up to 75%"
>
>Actually, the one that is usually used is the surface antibody test
>(HBsAb'), not the core antibody (HBcAb').
No, neither of these are usually used, at least not that I've ever
seen! The standard screening test for chronic hepatitis B infection
for pregnant women is the HBsAg, not HBsAb. (Do your local Obs do
HBsAb?!)
The HBcAb test can be positive in both chronic hepatitis B and those
who had a past acute infection but no longer carry the virus. The
former case required prevention of perinatal transmission, the second
doesn't.
Furthermore, the HBsAb is positive in both chronic carriers and those
who have never been infected but have been immunized.
Therefore, neither test is useful for screening for chronic infection.
The HBsAg test shows if you actually have virus particles in your
body, which is what we want to know.
PF
JG
news:3efef6d3...@news1.nwlink.com...
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 01:15:05 -0400, "CBI" <00...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
> >"JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote
> >> The article didn't specify what test was used, Mark. The HBcAb
(core
> >> antibody) test, which I'll bet was the one initially (2x) used,
*is*
> >> apparently quite unreliable: "The enzyme-linked immunoassay for
HBcAb
> >> has false-positive result rates up to 75%"
> >Actually, the one that is usually used is the surface antibody test
> >(HBsAb'), not the core antibody (HBcAb').
> No, neither of these are usually used, at least not that I've ever
> seen! The standard screening test for chronic hepatitis B infection
> for pregnant women is the HBsAg, not HBsAb. (Do your local Obs do
> HBsAb?!)
Okay, I've done a *little* research on routine blood tests. I think
it's quite likely they ran, *initially*, the standard screening tests
performed on donated blood, which would mean *both* the HBcAb (core
antibodies) AND the HBsAg (surface antigen). (Sorry, Chris, but it
looks like your "horse," HBsAb, is outta the race. ;o)) You docs can
certainly debate this all you wish. At any rate, my point in posting
was to point out to Mark that the "40-60% false positive" that he
apparently believes is BS *isn't*, if the test being referred to is the
HBcAb. (Of course, someone could always call St. Mary's Hospital in
Grand Junction--(970) 244-2273--and ask them what hepB tests they
initially run on new mothers.)
JG
> After reading the article and reports from other sources as well, my
> only conclusion about the whole story is that it's mostly if not all
> an anonymous anti-vac's wet dream (i.e., it's a fairy tale that never
> happened, at least no where near how it was reported.)
"Anonymous"? You really have to develop better detective skills, PF.
<g> The baby's father's name is (I'm fairly certain) Michael Manley.
See http://www.freewebs.com/phonetree/cases1.htm and
http://forcedvaccination.com/Father%27s%20Article.htm.
> Think about it: An anonymous dad with an anonymous baby tells his
> story to anti-vaccine newspapers that disseminate the "news" to each
> other, yet no other reputable and/or pseudo-objective news sources
> have reported on it.
It'll probably make the news if the parents pursue legal action against
some of the parties involved.
The story is juicy: A defenseless newborn is
> forced to receive a vaccine, so it must be hepatitis B as that is the
> only one offered to newborns, so they had to make up a story about a
> false result on testing, complete with believable circumstances
> leading up to the endpoint (emergency C-section followed by testing
> right around the time of birth, adding a sense of urgency).
If it's all "made up," the hospital and personnel involved (oh, wait...
Are all these people [see
http://www.forcedvaccination.netfirms.com/Call%20List.htm] "made up,"
too?) will have grounds for a libel suit, won't they? Why don't you
write them and urge them to initiate one?
> The screening test used for detection of chronic hepatitis B is HBsAg
> (hepatitis B surface antigen). The claim that "[a]ccording to the
> couple's personal physician, the screening test gives a false-positive
> 40 to 60 percent of the time" is pure bullshit. (The "personal
> physician, by the way, according to the Sierra Times, is a
> chiropractor.) A claim that a test has a high false-positive rate is a
> claim that it has low specificity. The World Health Organization
> evaluated five HBsAg assays and found specificities >95%:
http://www.who.int/bct/Main_areas_of_work/BTS/HIV_Diagnostics/Evaluation
_reports/Hepatatis/Hep_B_Rep1.rev.pdf
> While about a third of adults with chronic hepatitis B have no risk
> factors for it whatsoever, I would suspect still that a young mother
> in Colorado who tests positive for HBsAg might indeed have a good
> chance that it's a false positive. But to make up false-positive rates
> of "40 to 60 percent" is to falsely accuse the physicians of
> recklessly using an unreliable test, which they most certainly did
> not.
You are speculating. The test(s) initially performed are unknown.
(HepB tests discussed in another post.)
[...remaining speculation deleted...]
PF Riley
>"PF Riley" <pfr...@watt-not.com> wrote in message
>news:3efe835c...@news1.nwlink.com...
>
>> After reading the article and reports from other sources as well, my
>> only conclusion about the whole story is that it's mostly if not all
>> an anonymous anti-vac's wet dream (i.e., it's a fairy tale that never
>> happened, at least no where near how it was reported.)
>
>"Anonymous"? You really have to develop better detective skills, PF.
><g> The baby's father's name is (I'm fairly certain) Michael Manley.
>See http://www.freewebs.com/phonetree/cases1.htm and
>http://forcedvaccination.com/Father%27s%20Article.htm.
Good work. He still preferred to remain anonymous for the news
article.
That second article you cited above shows us even more his absurd
mindset and his poor ability to comprehend what was happening, making
his report of lab results, physicians' recommendations, and legal
proceedings even more unreliable.
He writes:
>The doctor and judge did not consider protocol when we were ordered to
>submit our daughter for another shot within 7 days. We were told that
>if we refused to do so, we would be in contempt of court.
Another load of bullshit. The "shot" was probably a blood draw for the
second newborn screening test, usually done during the second week of
life, in which newborns are screened for, among other conditions,
congenital hypothyroidism and phenylketonuria (PKU). I would speculate
that this family refused the test, preferring that God make their
child retarded if she has PKU or congenital hypothyroidism instead of
diagnosing the condition, appropriately treating it, and saving at
least some of her intellect, but that the court went ahead and ordered
them to submit their child to the other usual tests such as newborn
screening and hearing tests if they put her in protective custody.
Manley continues:
>A few days
>after the judge's ruling, the Center for Disease Control Hotline
>verified our fears, stating that "giving an infant a second shot
>within one week of the first one would certainly endanger her life".
This is a blatant lie.
JG:
>It'll probably make the news if the parents pursue legal action against
>some of the parties involved.
At which time the real story will come out.
>The story is juicy: A defenseless newborn is
>> forced to receive a vaccine, so it must be hepatitis B as that is the
>> only one offered to newborns, so they had to make up a story about a
>> false result on testing, complete with believable circumstances
>> leading up to the endpoint (emergency C-section followed by testing
>> right around the time of birth, adding a sense of urgency).
>
>If it's all "made up," the hospital and personnel involved (oh, wait...
>Are all these people [see
>http://www.forcedvaccination.netfirms.com/Call%20List.htm] "made up,"
>too?) will have grounds for a libel suit, won't they? Why don't you
>write them and urge them to initiate one?
Note none of them would comment on the case. Perhaps their attorneys
have told them not to as they prepare such a suit?
PF
Jeff Utz
> Just received this from a friend. (And before anyone starts arguing
> about the safety of vaccines, their [lack of] mercury content, the
> Geiers, the reliability of hepatitis B tests,..., let me point out that
> the issue at hand is that of *parental rights*.)
And the rights of a newborn to receive appropriate treatments.
All the best,
Jeff
CBI
"PF Riley" <pfr...@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:3efe835c...@news1.nwlink.com...
>
> After reading the article and reports from other sources as well, my
> only conclusion about the whole story is that it's mostly if not all
> an anonymous anti-vac's wet dream (i.e., it's a fairy tale that never
> happened, at least no where near how it was reported.)
That was my feeling as well (which I have been hinting at) but decided to
play nice for the time being. What tipped me off was when I did a google
search and found no references to legitimate news outlets but plenty on
anti-vac sites.
>
> Unfortunately, I think this is not correct. I can't imagine anyone
> screening a pregnant mother for hepatitis B with any antibody test, as
> none are useful for screening for chronic infection.
Like I said - it has been a while since I did a lot of nursery work (I gave
up trying to get the local hospital to call me instead of the house service
amongst other reasons). The reports I get usually have both the sAb' and
sAg'. They never run the core Ab'. I was taking a guess as to which they
would run if they choose only one.
>
> While about a third of adults with chronic hepatitis B have no risk
> factors for it whatsoever, I would suspect still that a young mother
> in Colorado who tests positive for HBsAg might indeed have a good
> chance that it's a false positive. But to make up false-positive rates
> of "40 to 60 percent" is to falsely accuse the physicians of
> recklessly using an unreliable test, which they most certainly did
> not.
I was taking the other view. A 19 year old who decides to not use
conventional medicine might have other risks for Hep B. The fact that she is
positive on at least one test (again, I am assuming she would be Ab'+ and
Ag' neg since that makes the most sense to me - if any of this is remotely
true) bears this out.
> If this were such a huge issue for this family, they could
> easily have educated themselves on what to expect in the hospital and
> refused testing for hepatitis B upon arrival.
To me this is a huge part of the issue. They are either making an informed
decision of not. If it is not then I have no sympathy for them. Their child
yes, them no. If it was informed then they screwed up and have no one else
to blame.
> >It has been a while since I looked at those studies so my memory is
fuzzy
> >on the details of exactly how many hours. There is data to suggest that
the
> >doses are more effective if given sooner but I don't think I was taught
the
> >12 hour rule (I seem to remember it as 24 hours - but I don't do much
> >newborn nursery work and would look it up if the situation arose). I
would
> >take the statement at face value and assume the studies are as quoted -
> >within 24 hours - since they probably would have given the details to
> >support a 12 hour recommendation if they had them.
>
> I learned and still keep 12 hours as a rule. I found only abstracts
> online for JAMA and Pediatrics for the three references (4, 5, and 8)
> in the 1991 MMWR report and none mentioned time limits. I would
> suspect that the research showed 24 hours was OK, so 12 hours was
> picked to be extra safe.
That would be my take on it.
The other reason I never really considered the matter much is that in the
past when I was notified of the results I ordered the immune globulin and
vaccination. It never really occurred to me to look at the clock and try to
figure how much time I could wait since I always just assumed ealier was
better. There is no reason to say, "Gee, we have another couple of hours -
let's go get lunch and do it later." I think the 12 hour rule is more of a
marker to use for quality purposes so facilities can judge if they are being
efficient enough in identifying and treating cases.
>
> Comments on the article itself:
>
>
> >With armed guards lining the ICU, the first of three ordered
> >vaccinations was administered to the baby. According to the family's
> >physician, the baby immediately exhibited the typical side effects of
> >the vaccine.
>
> Hmm.... so his thigh was sore the next day? Oh, the horror!
Why was the baby in the ICU?
"Baby M" was born without complication. "
>
> >By the time the second shot was due to be administered, the father had
> >succeeded in persuading county social worker Dan Overmeyer the
> >vaccination posed more risk than good for the baby's health.
>
> More anti-vac propaganda. I doubt Overmeyer concluded that vaccines
> were more risky than good for the baby -- he probably simply concluded
> that the baby is now known to have had no perinatal exposure to
> hepatitis B so protective custody and court-ordered hepatitis B
> vaccines are no longer required. His opinion otherwise on the risk of
> giving hepatitis B vaccine to an infant is irrelevant.
Like I said - This is not a case in the realm of routine vaccination. The
relevant issue is treatment for a known problem. it just so happens that
part of the treatment includes a vaccine. If I hit you with a hammer it does
not mean you are a nail. When the issues cleared up and it became an issue
of routine vaccination nothing was forced.
>
> >"Most of the doctors that I've talked to from around the country that
> >know about vaccinations have said that it takes months and sometimes
> >years for [adverse reactions] to show up,"
>
> When he says "doctors... that know about vaccinations" he means
> homeopaths, chiropractors, Classen, Scheibner, and the like.
Yes, he must be vary selective in who he talks to since that would not be
the result of a random sampling.
--
CBI
CBI
"JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:BEELa.7274$Hw.55...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
>
> You are speculating. The test(s) initially performed are unknown.
> (HepB tests discussed in another post.)
>
Your other post discussed the core antibody as it relates to liver
transplantation. This is almost certainly not the test they used.
--
CBI, MD
CBI
"JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:GbELa.7258$Hw.55...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
>
> Okay, I've done a *little* research on routine blood tests. I think
> it's quite likely they ran, *initially*, the standard screening tests
> performed on donated blood, which would mean *both* the HBcAb (core
> antibodies) AND the HBsAg (surface antigen). (Sorry, Chris, but it
> looks like your "horse," HBsAb, is outta the race. ;o))
Sorry JG but there was no way in hell it was the core antibody.
> You docs can
> certainly debate this all you wish. At any rate, my point in posting
> was to point out to Mark that the "40-60% false positive" that he
> apparently believes is BS *isn't*, if the test being referred to is the
> HBcAb.
Which means - it is BS.
--
CBI, MD
Mark
<snip>
> You are speculating. The test(s) initially performed are unknown.
> (HepB tests discussed in another post.)
>
> [...remaining speculation deleted...]
I have never worked anywhere where they did NOT use the HbsAg test.
It has very high specificity and sensitivity. I'd be interested in
knowing if there are any US hospitals using a different test to screen
pregnant mothers.
Mark, MD
JG
> "JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:GbELa.7258$Hw.55...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> > Okay, I've done a *little* research on routine blood tests. I think
> > it's quite likely they ran, *initially*, the standard screening
tests
> > performed on donated blood, which would mean *both* the HBcAb (core
> > antibodies) AND the HBsAg (surface antigen). (Sorry, Chris, but it
> > looks like your "horse," HBsAb, is outta the race. ;o))
> Sorry JG but there was no way in hell it was the core antibody.
*Why not*? (Please try to keep your answer fairly simple. <g>) I did a
Google search using "'blood tests', hepatitis B" and numerous sites (out
of the 20K+ returned) suggest that *both* the HBsAg and the HBcAb tests
are "routine." Here are some of them for you:
http://livercancer.stanford.edu/index2.asp?lang=eng&page=bloodtests
http://www.hepb.org/02-0087.hepb
http://www.hepfi.org/pdfs/info_b.pdf
From the third (hepfi.org) site:
"There are three standard blood tests for HBV.
1) HBsAg (hepatitis B surface antigen): When this test is positive or
reactive, you are infected with HBV and can pass it on to others.
2) Anti-HBc (antibody to hepatitis B core antigen): When you test
positive, it means you are currently infected with HBV or have been
infected at some point in the past.
3) Anti-HBs (antibody to HbsAg): When this test is positive, it means
that you are immune to hepatitis B either as a result of having had the
disease or from having been given the vaccine."
As I said, 1 & 2, *but not 3*, are "standard" for those donating blood.
(Do a Google search using "donating blood, tests, hepatitis B.") I'll
e-mail Michael Manley and ask him which test came back with the false
positive, okay?
> > You docs can
> > certainly debate this all you wish. At any rate, my point in
posting
> > was to point out to Mark that the "40-60% false positive" that he
> > apparently believes is BS *isn't*, if the test being referred to is
the
> > HBcAb.
> Which means - it is BS.
We'll see.
CBI
> "CBI" <00...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:bdnj44$2l9$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > "JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > news:GbELa.7258$Hw.55...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
>
> > > Okay, I've done a *little* research on routine blood tests. I think
> > > it's quite likely they ran, *initially*, the standard screening
> tests
> > > performed on donated blood, which would mean *both* the HBcAb (core
> > > antibodies) AND the HBsAg (surface antigen). (Sorry, Chris, but it
> > > looks like your "horse," HBsAb, is outta the race. ;o))
>
> > Sorry JG but there was no way in hell it was the core antibody.
>
> *Why not*? (Please try to keep your answer fairly simple. <g>)
You've had three different docs tell you that it is not the common practice
for one thing.
For another you, yourself, have posted info on why it is not such a good
test.
Yes, it can help define a person's exact status if they have the luxury of
ordering a full panel and waiting for the results to come back - but no one
would use it as the sole test in this situation.
--
CBI, MD
JG
> "JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:J%ILa.7437$Hw.56...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> > "CBI" <00...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:bdnj44$2l9$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > "JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > > news:GbELa.7258$Hw.55...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> > > > Okay, I've done a *little* research on routine blood tests. I
think
> > > > it's quite likely they ran, *initially*, the standard screening
> > tests
> > > > performed on donated blood, which would mean *both* the HBcAb
(core
> > > > antibodies) AND the HBsAg (surface antigen). (Sorry, Chris, but
it
> > > > looks like your "horse," HBsAb, is outta the race. ;o))
> > > Sorry JG but there was no way in hell it was the core antibody.
> > *Why not*? (Please try to keep your answer fairly simple. <g>)
> You've had three different docs tell you that it is not the common
practice
> for one thing.
Bwahahaha! A *thousand* doctors could tell me--tell anyone--it's not
"the common practice," but that doesn't answer my question. (And gee,
one of those doctors suggested that perhaps a HBsAb test was used (and
came back "positive")... Now what good would it do to know that the mom
had been previously exposed/was immune to hepB? The pertinent question,
I should think, would be whether she has an *active or chronic
infection*.)
Here's what I found on yet another site
(http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/v
ol-165/issue-8/1063.asp):
"Hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) is the first antibody to appear
following acute hepatitis B infection and will persist in high levels
following resolution of infection and in chronically infected patients.
Resolved infection is generally recognized by the presence of antibody
to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAb) in the serum, whereas in chronic
infection hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) itself is typically
present."
> For another you, yourself, have posted info on why it is not such a
good
> test.
> Yes, it can help define a person's exact status if they have the
luxury of
> ordering a full panel and waiting for the results to come back - but
no one
> would use it as the sole test in this situation.
Of course not, IF it came back positive. From the same site as the
above:
"Cost efficacy considerations led to a recent change in the routine
heptatitis B screening algorithm at the Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish
General Hospital, a tertiary care, 637-bed teaching hospital in
Montreal. Patients are now evaluated initially with serum HBcAb testing.
A negative HBcAb test result is reported as HBV-negative, and a positive
result is followed by testing for HBsAg and, if this result is negative,
HBsAb. HBsAg-positive sera are tested for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)
and hepatitis B e antibody (HBeAb)."
But what do Canadians know, eh? <g>
And from another site
(http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:mjt2mK8huc0J:www.geocities.com/hbv
info/treatment.htm+HBcAb&hl=en&ie=UTF-8):
*HBcAb is the first detectable antibody to appear after infection.
*Hence it is an early indicator of an acute infection.
*However, HBcAb does not neutralise the virus.
*HBcAb persists in the serum even after infection with HBV has been
defeated, hence it is a life-long marker which represents past exposure
as well as active infection in the acute or chronic stages.
*HBcAb includes IgG and IgM antibodies.
Hmmm...seems like this is the test I'd initially run, despite its
relatively high rate of false positives; if it comes back negative,
that's that. If it comes back positive, it simply indicates more
testing is called for.
I now believe that it's probable (not just possible) that the initial
test WAS the HBcAb...
JG ...Haven't heard from Michael Manley yet, btw.
PF Riley
wrote:
>> >vaccinations was administered to the baby. According to the family's
>> >physician, the baby immediately exhibited the typical side effects of
>> >the vaccine.
>>
>> Hmm.... so his thigh was sore the next day? Oh, the horror!
>
>Why was the baby in the ICU?
>
>"Baby M" was born without complication. "
To the (dis?)credit of the parents and the article's author, they
probably have no clue what the difference between the newborn nursery
and ICU are. And perhaps the baby was in their "sick nursery" by that
point because I'm sure she wasn't rooming in with mom.
PF
PF Riley
>
>"Cost efficacy considerations led to a recent change in the routine
>heptatitis B screening algorithm at the Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish
>General Hospital, a tertiary care, 637-bed teaching hospital in
>Montreal. Patients are now evaluated initially with serum HBcAb testing.
>A negative HBcAb test result is reported as HBV-negative, and a positive
>result is followed by testing for HBsAg and, if this result is negative,
>HBsAb. HBsAg-positive sera are tested for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)
>and hepatitis B e antibody (HBeAb)."
Aha. Now you're getting somewhere. Again, good work.
Whether this practice of a Montreal tertiary care hospital has been
adopted by a hospital in Colorado for screening low-risk obstetrical
patients despite not being common practice elsewhere remains to be
seen.
PF
JG
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:37:44 GMT, "JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >"Cost efficacy considerations led to a recent change in the routine
> >heptatitis B screening algorithm at the Sir Mortimer B. Davis-Jewish
> >General Hospital, a tertiary care, 637-bed teaching hospital in
> >Montreal. Patients are now evaluated initially with serum HBcAb
testing.
> >A negative HBcAb test result is reported as HBV-negative, and a
positive
> >result is followed by testing for HBsAg and, if this result is
negative,
> >HBsAb. HBsAg-positive sera are tested for hepatitis B e antigen
(HBeAg)
> >and hepatitis B e antibody (HBeAb)."
> Aha. Now you're getting somewhere. Again, good work.
Gee, thanks! <g> I'm learning more about HBV blood tests than any
normal person would want (or need) to know. (I think Chris might be a
tad miffed, though. If it makes him feel any better, he can look up
some obscure provision in the tax code and spring it on me. :o))
> Whether this practice of a Montreal tertiary care hospital has been
> adopted by a hospital in Colorado for screening low-risk obstetrical
> patients despite not being common practice elsewhere remains to be
> seen.
How do you know it's not, or not rapidly becoming, "common practice"
elsewhere? I'd like to think that hospitals act independently (and
frugally!), especially those that receive a lot of public (county, city)
funding.
From what I've read, the HBcAb has (*by far*) the highest false positive
rate of the various HBV serum tests. While the 19-year-old father
(tsk!) probably knew diddly-squat about the various HBV tests, I
imagine the couple's "personal physician" (chiropractor?) and at least
some of the anti-vaccination cadre supporting them were aware of the
HBcAb test's dismal track record. I find it extremely hard to believe
that they (the "personal physician"?) would recklessly comment about a
"40 to 60%" false positive unless they (he/she) *knew* that the HBcAb
was, indeed, the test run.
JG ...Still waiting to hear from Mr. Manley and considering whether to
contact the hospital and ask *them* what test was used, or, given that
that might be confidential information, what test they routinely use in
screening new moms for hep B.
Mark
I just did.
A nice-sounding young nurse named Kim informed me that their standard
Hep B screening test is, indeed, the HBsAg.
Another piece of the puzzle found.
Mark, MD
CBI
"JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:I0QLa.7672$Hw.57...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
>
> > You've had three different docs tell you that it is not the common
> practice
> > for one thing.
>
> Bwahahaha! A *thousand* doctors could tell me--tell anyone--it's not
> "the common practice," but that doesn't answer my question. (And gee,
> one of those doctors suggested that perhaps a HBsAb test was used (and
> came back "positive")... Now what good would it do to know that the mom
> had been previously exposed/was immune to hepB? The pertinent question,
> I should think, would be whether she has an *active or chronic
> infection*.)
The pertinent question I was trying to ask was - what common test could they
have done and confirmed as positive but later had it turn out there was no
risk?
HBsAg'? - no - it doesn't fit. Yes, it is the one used almost everywhere in
normal circumstances but it is incredibly unlikely that it would be positive
twice and then negative later. If it was which test results would be to be
believed? If it was positive then no other test would prove she did not have
it.
HBcore Ab'? - sure it is possible and fits the scenario of a test that is
latrer contradicted but no one uses it for this.
HBsAb' - this is the only one that fits the story. The fact that the odds
are overwhelming that it is not the test used (in isolation) only serves to
show another inconsistancy in the story.
Garbage in - garbage out.
>
> Here's what I found on yet another site
> (http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/v
> ol-165/issue-8/1063.asp):
> "Hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) is the first antibody to appear
> following acute hepatitis B infection and will persist in high levels
> following resolution of infection and in chronically infected patients.
> Resolved infection is generally recognized by the presence of antibody
> to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAb) in the serum, whereas in chronic
> infection hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) itself is typically
> present."
First ANTIBODY. The antigen rises before any antibody (and then diappears
during a brief "window" period).
> I now believe that it's probable (not just possible) that the initial
> test WAS the HBcAb...
You can believe the moon is made of green cheese if you want.
>
> JG ...Haven't heard from Michael Manley yet, btw.
No kidding. Big surprise.
--
CBI, MD
CBI
"Mark" <mlo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5ee850fe.03063...@posting.google.com...
> (Of course, someone could always call St. Mary's Hospital in
> > Grand Junction--(970) 244-2273--and ask them what hepB tests they
> > initially run on new mothers.)
>
>
> I just did.
>
> A nice-sounding young nurse named Kim informed me that their standard
> Hep B screening test is, indeed, the HBsAg.
>
> Another piece of the puzzle found.
JG - ppphhhhhhhhhhtttttttthhhhhhh